Monthly Archives: January 2013

Black Helicopters Firing Blanks Over Houston

Yesterday we reported that black helicopters were firing over downtown Miami, now they are in Houston.

Almost a year ago to the day- January 25, 2012, LAPD and Special Forces conducted military maneuvers over downtown Los Angeles. The report also states that these maneuvers have been practiced in Boston, and they also mention Miami. If you watch the link above, there was another maneuver in Miami just this week.

These manuevers are being called “dry runs” for the future. With the political climate in our country currently, one has to ask… a dry run to prepare against the citizens of The United States?

 

 

H/T Truth About Guns

LAPD/Special Forces Conduct Military Maneuvers Over Downtown LA

In January of 2012, in Los Angeles, the LAPD and Special Forces conduct military maneuvers without warning citizens, and officials stated that the training was hush-hush, but “routine”.

Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as a Black Hawk helicopter and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.

The report states that it could be a “dry run” for the future. A dry run for what?

 

Why Hello G.I. Jane

Screen Shot 2013-01-29 at 10.41.41 AMAs Bridget Johnson tattled this morning, polls show support for women in combat.  There has been a lot of discussion regarding Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifting the ban on women in combat positions.  As Fox News posted on January 24:

The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs to women. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey both approved the change Thursday, and the White House separately said it endorsed the decision.  The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

Slate had a piece from a veteran, Kayla Williams, which detailed that women have been on the frontlines for years.  In fact, 150 U.S. servicewomen in our armed forces have been killed in Iraq of Afghanistan.  It also could be to our advantage, as we try to maneuver ourselves out of Afghanistan since:

[T]hose who served in Iraq and Afghanistan came to understand that in complex counterinsurgency operations, especially in Muslim nations, the presence of women troops is a vital way to interact with the civilian population—so important, in fact, that military leaders have long been skirting the old regulations by placing women in combat units.

However, Williams is a realist about this policy shift, and noted that it’ll be phased in over the years.

Much work remains to be done to implement this landmark reform. It is likely that the military will follow a multiyear process for phasing in changes, similar to that planned by the Australian military….the U.S. military services (particularly the Army and Marines) may argue that some jobs, particularly in the Special Forces, should remain closed to women. But as women continue to prove their abilities in a growing number of positions, those exclusions will become harder to justify.

It is true that not all women can handle the physical demands of military service. However, neither can all men. In fact, only 25 percent of today’s young people qualify for military service at all—the rest are too obese, too poorly educated, or have criminal backgrounds that bar them. Today [Jan. 24] Panetta is acknowledging that to maintain the high standards of the military, assignments should be based on ability, not gender.

Key in critical aspects of counter-insurgency, helping ease the strain on our ground forces, and providing a buffer from the lack of qualified candidates to fill the ranks in the future –  it sounds rational to lift the ban, right?  Not really, in fact, some conservatives, like the editors at National Review, feel that the military isn’t the area for progressive social experimentation.  Furthermore, if we are going to do this, it needs to be comprehensive, and the standards for women in combat need to go all the way.
The Editors at National Review on January 25 had this to say about the ban lift.

The administration has promised that there will be no reduction of physical standards to accommodate women in combat roles, but that promise almost certainly is false — and Senator McCain, who has endorsed the move, should know better than to pretend otherwise. The political mandate to integrate women into the military had disastrous consequences for standards at West Point, as Walter Williams documented the last time we had this debate. The use of “gender-specific” physical standards meant that female candidates were given passing marks on tests when underperforming their male counterparts on such common benchmarks as push-ups, sit-ups, and running 1.5 miles.This repeats the experience of similar civilian agencies, such as police and fire departments, in which standards have been lowered under the guise of revising them for professional relevance. One particularly comical feature of these developments has been the authorities’ insistence that they are acting independently of political pressure while simultaneously acknowledging that they are motivated by the fear of litigation brought by feminist groups. The ideological absurdity at play here is hard to exaggerate: When members of the Los Angeles city council demanded hiring quotas for the LAPD and a consequent relaxation of standards, they argued that concerns about physical difference could be overcome by implementing a “feminist approach to policing.” We pray that we may be spared a feminist approach to national security.

Some female veterans are skeptical about the change.  Virginia Kruta, a ten-year army veteran, posted on her blog that:

The military is strong in part because it is the most discriminatory workplace in the nation. You can be kept out, fired, or barred from promotion simply for being too tall, too short, too thin, too fat, too sick, too injured,too stupid, and the list goes on. Every move it has made in the direction of political correctness has been a move away from strength.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air quoted a female Marine, known as “Sentry,” who gave this testimony, and delved into the one area that’s on everyone’s mind: physical limitations.
 … deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
[…]
Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
 Heather MacDonald at National Review also mentioned this obstacle, and called this move is a “disastrous mistake.”
 The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.
[…]
If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.
MacDonald also noted that we should “expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.”
Our military is the best in the world.  Our soldiers are, for the lack of a better word, killing machines – not office co-workers.  However, I still have no problem with women on the front lines for the reasons I mentioned above.  However, that’s dependent on if the Obama administration doesn’t reduce, or dumb down, the various physical standards.  Only the best of the best, men and women alike, should be out there arranging meetings with God for our enemies.  Furthermore, just because women did well in the Summer Olympics, which is still a phenomenal achievement, doesn’t mean they’re all ready for combat.  It’s a false equivalency.
Now that gender exclusivity on the frontlines has been virtually erased, will liberals, progressives, and feminists be as vociferous in their advocacy for women  joining the Selective Service at eighteen?
Originally posted on PJ Tatler.

Immigration; Even A Liberal Can Understand

Looks like immigration is back in the news again. Once again we hear Liberals screaming for amnesty for all people here illegally, while Conservatives scream no amnesty for illegal’s. Here is a little story made simple so even a Liberal can understand it. However, will they, I doubt it.

ill

There are two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California, or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or Nebraska — you get the idea.

Joe Legal works in construction has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention….

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631 .00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc..

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same elementary school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches, while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.

Now, when they reach college age, Joe Legal’s kids may not get into a State School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while Jose Illegal’s kids “go to the head of the class” because they are a minority.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now? It is hard for me to understand why Liberals just do not get it. Conservatives, do not hate immigrants, we hate illegal immigrants. Our nation was built on the backs of immigrants; it was immigrants that made this country the strongest country in the world. However, when we try to enforce the laws of this nation, Liberals start screaming that we are haters. Well I say let them scream all they want, we know what is right and we will keep on doing it. Liberal views and policies are responsible for our country falling apart. Legal immigrants in, illegal immigrants out. We need more Joe Arpaio’s in this country.  

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens… You are part of the problem!

It is way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

images

This is one man’s opinion.

 

Dear Left, If Sarah is Irrelevant Why ALL the Coverage?

SarahPalinElon

Photo courtesy WikiCommons

It’s been more than four years since the Left began demonizing Sarah Palin, criticizing everything from her hair to her speech patterns. After losing the election we were told by the Main Stream Media that ordinary citizen Sarah was: no longer an important part of the Tea Party, not accepted by the Republican Party; that she was not relevant.

And yet, the Left, particularly the biased media, keep Mrs. Palin in the news. They love to headline the Palin family and criticize every word she says.

It makes no sense. If Sarah Palin is really irrelevant why do they keep talking about her? Why, today, is the Huffington Post and other Leftist news sites top story the amount of money per spoken word that Palin made as a contributor to FOX News?

HuffPo: Sarah Palin’s time at Fox News is over, and so is her $1 million-per-year salary. Now, a university study has chronicled just exactly how much the former vice presidential candidate was making when she did each interview on the network.

The University of Minnesota’s Eric Ostermeier tallied up all of the words Palin uttered during her three years on Fox News, and divided them by the $3 million she racked up over that time. His conclusion:

A Smart Politics review of the more than 150 FOX broadcasts in which Sarah Palin appeared as a paid commentator from 2010 through 2012 finds that she spoke 189,221 words on air during this span, for an average pay rate of $15.85 per word.

Has any other irrelevant news analyst had his words counted and attached a dollar per word figure? Has any other irrelevant celebrity had her slang words counted? Because when something is irrelevant it is no longer of interest to others. When someone is irrelevant after using up that 15 minutes of fame and returning to general anonymity.

Or, in the eyes of the media, is Sarah Palin still relevant?

Obama takes heat for criticizing Fox News, Limbaugh

Further showcasing his inability to tolerate dissension, Barack Obama recently made statement calling out media outlets often unsupportive of his leftist agenda.

He claimed Republican lawmakers would generally be open to compromising with their Democrat counterparts but are afraid they will be “punished on Fox news or by Rush Limbaugh.”

Obama made the comments in an interview that never explored the obvious liberal bias held by the overwhelming majority of news outlets.

In fact, he openly embraced what he called “more left-leaning media outlets” for their recognition “that compromise is not a dirty word.” He also suggested he and his leftist cohorts in the Democrat party are more open to “buck[ing] the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”

Plenty of media watchdog groups and conservative organizations lashed out at the president for his ill-advised verbal attack on an industry he despises.

Of course, this is far from the first time Obama has targeted a group or individual he deems unfriendly to his worldview. In fact, as author Ben Shapiro pointed out, he has taken aim at the same entities in previous remarks.”He’s d one this before,” Shapiro said, calling Obama “a bully.” He continued, saying the president is “saying the media is not liberal enough. I think he wants people who don’t like him to be quiet.”

A respected Fox News personality, Greta van Susteren, also chastised Obama’s generalization of her network.
Writing on her blog, van Susteren implied Obama is upset because he “wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies,” which she said “happens to be the media’s job.”

She also lambasted the president’s implication that Fox News featured just one viewpoint.“Some Democrats have told me that they want to come on Fox to discuss issues,” she said, “but they get heat from their leadership for appearing on Fox.”

Finally, she pointed out the absurdity of Obama suggesting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is open to compromise.
“He has not allowed a budget to get to the Senate floor for years to even begin a discussion,” she said. “The budget process is where all compromise begins and ends and ended it before it even got started.

The Obama White House, and the president specifically, have called out Fox News on other occasions. While Obama implied the network’s viewers were “a little stubborn” in 2012, his then-spokesperson Anita Dunn described it three years earlier as “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center summed up Obama’s overarching complaint. “The media has always helped shape the political environment,” he said, “but Democrats object to the conservative media now being able to.” Noyes surmised the prevailing thought among leftists, saying, “It was so much easier for them when the big three networks and The New York Times left out the inconvenient facts.”


Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Expanding Opportunity Through School Choice

Generation Opportunity is a proud partner of National School Choice Week

Washington, DC – (1/28/13) – Generation Opportunity, the nation’s leading youth advocacy group for 18-29 year olds, is joining National School Choice Week as a proud partner. Beginning January 27th, National School Choice Week will be marked by a series of events and activities across the country focused on highlighting success stories, advancing school choice and education reform in America, and promoting “effective education options for every child.” The quality of America’s education system has a direct impact on the future success of the young people it is set up to serve and, ultimately, on the nation’s ability to sustain a cutting-edge workforce that is able to compete in the global economy.

“Generation Opportunity supports commonsense policy ideas that can expand opportunities for young people, both now and in the future, as many of us are proud parents, committed teachers, caring older brothers and sisters, and active members of our community. We see firsthand the positive impact that emerges when parents are empowered to make the right decisions for their children,” said Terence D. Grado, Director for National and State Policy at Generation Opportunity. “We are not a partisan generation and are instead focused on achieving results. School choice enjoys broad bipartisan support and has a clear track record of success. Thus, we are excited to join this broad coalition that has come together to advance opportunity through innovation in education.”

In 2011, Generation Opportunity supported school choice advocates in New Jersey in an effort to pass the Opportunity Scholarship Act in partnership with the Garden State Education Reform Coalition, among other efforts. Grassroots organizers launched the “Jersey Proud School Choice Tour” and helped organize a rally at the State House in Trenton. Generation Opportunity’s grassroots field team will participate in Virginia’s 2013 School Choice Day at the Capitol, partnering with the Virginia Coalition for Public School Options for a rally in Richmond. The group also plans to participate in other events this week to hear firsthand from students, teachers, and parents about their priorities and concerns.

Visit http://www.schoolchoiceweek.com/ for more information or to find an event in your area.

1-25-13 Drill? Black Helicopters Open Fire in Downtown Miami

** Warning: Explicit Language **

In an April 2012, new article, the police said, “Don’t mind the helicopters, it’s just practice”. This event happened on January 25, 2013, according to the person who posted this video.

YouTube Description:

The link below i just found while doing a quick search .. the article is from April 2012 , but it forshadows the event you see in the video .. They planned this stuff out long ago … And this time they didnt put out Warning , like they sat they did back in April … But like the police say … Dont Worry , Its Just an Exercise …. lol Yeah right !

CIA admits to using the “news” to manipulate the USA since at least 1975

We all know the famous line from A Few Good Men… “You just can’t handle the truth!”

This is what the “News Media” is counting on!

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” – William Colby, former CIA director

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

Optimize Your Dollar: Five Easy Ways to Save on Dinner

optimize your dollar 1

Noticing that cash crunch from your lowered paycheck this week? Here are five quick and easy ways to save money at meal time.

  1. Breakfast for Dinner: My family loves homemade breakfast. Trouble is we don’t usually have enough time in the morning for more than cereal and juice before heading out. So we move breakfast to dinner once a week. A box of pancake mix, some butter and syrup and you’ve got the fixin’s to fill up even the hungriest teen. Add a side of seasonal or frozen fruit (here in the desert it’s citrus time) and some bacon or sausage and you’re set.
  2. Breakfast for Dinner Part Two: Still thinking about breakfast? Might I suggest baked eggs? This one is soooo easy. Throw it together and into the oven for 30-40 minutes, help the kids with their homework while it’s baking, and then time to eat. There are no hard and fast rules to make this: I use 2-3 eggs per adult, 2 for less hungry kids, stirred with a little milk, salt & pepper; sprinkle some hash browns in the bottom of the pan (if you have them, some people line the bottom of the pan with slices of bread); bacon or other meat if you want (cooked first and crumbled); some cooked vegetables (we like to take frozen broccoli chopped up, cooked in microwave 5-6 minutes and drained—I use about 1/3 cup per person); pour the egg mix in and cheese for the top. Use oil, butter or spray Pam in your pan and bake at 350 until puffed up in the center.
  3. Make your own pizza: Around here there are pizza specials where for under $10 you get a medium pizza, enough for a couple adults or several small children. Otherwise, pizza can be a pretty expensive treat. Why not make your own? Jiffy makes an inexpensive and easy to make crust but there are others readily available, you can also make your own pizza sauce (can of tomato sauce, tomato paste, seasonings including garlic and oregano) or you can buy sauce at the grocer.  In both cases watch for these to be on sale and stock up (they have a long shelf life—if you buy a yeast product, pay attention to the ‘use by’ date.) Add your toppings and bake.  Look for your favorite toppings to be on sale too, most, including shredded cheese, can be frozen for later use. This is a great meal where the kids can help.
  4. Hamburger Helper: Many families like the quick easy meals that can be prepared with the Hamburger Helper type mixes. My friend with five kids shared her tip to make one package feed the clan: she cooks separately, additional pasta and then stirs it into the pan mixing together. She said this is the only way to get enough food into the hollow legs of her growing boys and does the same with macaroni and cheese mixes. A second suggestion is to use ground turkey either alone or mixed with regular hamburger. At our local Costco I can buy a five pound chub of ground turkey for $7. I let it thaw enough to cut and then portion it out. At this point you can cook it all up and freeze in portion sized bags for later use (shaves ten minutes off cooking later and you can throw it in the microwave to thaw). If your family doesn’t like ground turkey plane you can easily mix it 50-50 with the cheap hamburger, which will have plenty of fat to add flavor.
  5. Nail Soup. Do you remember this children’s story? A traveler enters a very unfriendly village and sets out a pot filled with water over a fire. The curious villagers come out one by one and the traveler explains that he is making a magic soup that uses nothing but his special nail. As it simmers he tells them how great it will be, if only he had a pinch of salt which one woman decides she can share. After tasting it again he remarks how wonderful the soup would be, if 100_0897only he could add a carrot or two, which another villager remembers she has in the house. The story goes on, adding potatoes, then some meat, etc., etc. until the pot is filled with a delicious simmering soup. The traveler shares it with the villagers who find it amazing and happiness abounds. That’s the soup we make at our house. What’s in the refrigerator? Some leftover chicken or ham, pick it off the bone and throw in the pot. Got a few potatoes? Peel and add. Carrots or cauliflower? You got it. Our soup is never the same but it’s always delicious. As I was typing this article I made a pot for dinner tonight. In the freezer I discovered a chunk of leftover turkey from Thanksgiving, still good, but a little frosty looking. Cut it up added an onion and some potatoes. Today I have a sweet potato and kale. Both made a fine addition to the soup. I add just enough water to cover and today used a couple of chicken bouillon cubes for seasoning.  Cook the potatoes until soft so they can be mashed up a little. Often I add a can of creamed corn (just before serving) to thicken. You 100_0901can add milk for a creamier sauce. You can make it with pasta (I cook pasta separately and add at end so it doesn’t get mushy.) And, as my family likes to remind me, if it’s kind of bland tasting, ketchup makes it better. This soup takes a little more time to prepare and cook but you can put together it at night and cook in the crockpot.

So there you have it. Five easy ways to stretch your dollar at dinner. Using any one of these suggestions should save a family of four at least $10 per meal over everyone ordering a kids meal at the local fast food store.

NOTE: I am not a nutritionist so make absolutely NO claim about the nutritional value of these meals. As a mom I will say our family does try to eat a well balanced diet.

If you have suggestions to stretch your shopping dollar or questions please let me know.

The REAL Fools on the Hill Are At It Again!

Once again, we had another fiscal emergency. Well, THEY had a self-made emergency. Yes, our Federal government, our legislators, the ones who created this “Fiscal Cliff” mess in the first place and had over 2 years to work toward a resolution decided to wait until the last minute and act like they were riding in on a white horse (paid for by the American taxpayer) to solve the problem they created. And what did they do? They made the problem worse. They fixed NOTHING!

They simply pushed the debt down the road. This country is deficit spending at a rate that we can NEVER repay no matter how much money we steal from the rich.

Let’s put in terms we can all understand. Say you make $50,000 a year, and let’s say your expenses are almost $68,000 a year. You can cut back on expenditures or you can do what the government does when they aren’t making enough money… take a second, third, and forth mortgage out on your house. Then, use the borrowed money to pay your deficit while you continue to spend more than you’re making.

In ten years you are still in the hole. $180,000 in the hole. Even if you get a 2% raise each year, you will still be in the hole. This ratio is roughly equivalent to how our government is currently operating.

Our Federal government takes in almost $2.4 trillion a year in tax revenues. They spend over $3.6 trillion a year. We are spending a TRILLION more than we take in! President Obama and our Representatives have committed us to spending an additional $4 trillion over the next 10 years, leaving one big mess of a legacy for someone else to figure out because many of them won’t be around.

The Fiscal Cliff compromise didn’t really deal with any cuts or spending reforms. Remember, Mr. Obama said “no more bailouts for banks and big corporations”?? Well, NASCAR, the green industry, farming, and many others got BIG TAX breaks. And Obama’s beloved middle class got the BIG SHAFT!

The average American will lose $30.00 each week from their paychecks. That’s a ½ tank of gas, 1.5 bags of groceries, the water bill, or the phone bill.

The average American will lose $120 to $150 each month.  That’s ½ a car payment, a full insurance payment, or an electric bill in a small apartment. DOES ANYONE ON THAT HILL REALLY GIVE A ^%@$ about the American worker? NO!

As a small business owner, I spend a lot of time working through the company budget, what we are spending, what we need to spend and so on. As a husband, father, and homeowner I also have to take time to look at our current income, our expected future income, the safeguards on our investments, and “Plan B” in case everything blows up. It takes time and input from experts.

The Fools on the Hill took 3 minutes to evaluate this compromise before they voted on it! I wish I were joking. Let that sink in. Most of our U.S. Senators received a copy of this 154 page bill 3 minutes before they voted on it, maybe 10 minutes total.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t read 154 pages, take it in, and understand the details in less than 10 minutes. But these guys to this ALL THE TIME!

They have all got to go!

Democrats need to wake. Fifteen of the best 21 run states are controlled by Republicans. Eleven states that currently have more people on public assistance than those not on public assistance are run by Democrats. Detroit, the poster child for the way the Democrats want to do business, is in the toilet and has been for a long time. The schools are a mess, government is a mess, the city is a mess, the streets are a mess. Shall I go on?

Both sides need to look at the hard numbers and see what works and what doesn’t and just do what works! PERIOD!

How does an elected official looking at their failing city, look at successfully running city and decide they can’t do what the other city is doing because its run by the “other side” . That’s un-American, un-patriotic, and just plain stupid.

Hey America! Grow up and get a clue. Let’s replace these “Fools on the Hill” before they destroy us all.

Joe Messina

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

homeremedyforatoothache1/27/13 The root canal is complete and Mrs.Davis is back with all bicuspids and molars in tact! Tonight we’ll chat with the newest member of the CDNews family, Stephen Hamilton and Louis Fowler joins us for entertainment. Big news:  Toure likes chicks and thinks aborted babies are better for personal protection than a gun. I’ll explain tonight at 10pm ET/7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk radio.

All Life is Not Equal

First, on a personal note: Thank you, thank you and thank you, Mary Elizabeth Williams! What a glorious service you’ve done the pro-life cause. I know, that’s not what you intended. But that’s precisely what you’ve accomplished.

Did I say thank you?

In her jaw-dropping article, “So what if abortion ends life?” Williams – a mainstream, though uncharacteristically honest pro-abort scribe for Salon.com – has inexplicably broken from the Orwellian left’s ministerial script. In so doing, she’s severally undermined the very cause for which she would gladly “sacrifice” (dismember alive that is) her very own daughter. A daughter, mind you, whom she coldly acknowledges to be “a human life.”

But enough with the pleasantries.

In his 1925 manifesto “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler wrote: “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal.” Though technically a human life, “the parasitic Jew is a human life without having the same rights as the Aryan.”

“Mother Germany is the boss,” he declared. “Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous Jew. Always.”

Ha! Just kidding. Actually, Ms. Williams wrote those things. She wrote them, not from Nazi Germany in 1925, but, rather, from America. Wednesday.

She wrote them, not about the Jewish people, but, instead, about the most vulnerable of all people: The child in her mother’s womb. (A holocaust by any other name …)

Yes, welcome to Feminist Funland, where the women are randy and the children are dead. In “So what if abortion ends life?” (I just love writing that), Williams, like some unintentionally creepy clown, guides us through the “pro-choice” house of mirrors, revealing, with crystal clarity, the true horror behind the left’s distorted reflections.

“While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as ‘pro-life,’” she writes, “the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like ‘choice’ and ‘reproductive freedom.’”

Here, Ms. Williams essentially admits what the life community has said for decades – that the euphemistic language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom,” long employed by the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry, is exactly that; euphemism – propaganda.

In so many words, she goes on to acknowledge that, rather than “pro-choice,” “pro-death” is indeed the appropriate moniker for her movement. “Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice,” she proclaims.

Nice. Wonder how many of the little Williams babies made the cut.

But the money line? “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live,” she declares. “All life is not equal.”

Get that, Thomas Jefferson? “All life is not equal.” Put that in your self-evident-truth-pipe and smoke it. We clear, MLK? Wrap that “I have a dream” up in a big wad of “All life is not equal” and get to the back of the Birmingham bus.

Indeed, Ms. Williams is a militant feminist and that’s adorable; but her line of reasoning here is anything but fresh and cute. It stems from the utilitarian rotgut Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger poured down the gullet of her power-drunk eugenicist fans – foremost of whom was the hypertensive fuhrer himself.

Still, to be fair, I’ll let Ms. Williams speak for herself: “Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides,” she finds. “She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

In other words: “Me no likey? You die.” Or, as Hitler really did say: “We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.” Old Adolf, of course, defined “health” to mean exactly what feminists mean by it. “Health: Any reason at all.”

Maybe I’ve been at this too long, but I love it when liberals mistake sociopathy for conviction – candor for courage. I revel in those rare moments when left-wing extremists, nestled warm inside the foul bowels of their “progressive” echo chamber – pull back the wizard’s curtain just far enough to expose, if only for an instant, the wicked sty in which they roll, splash and play.

Like this gem: “If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant,” Williams boasts, “you bet you’re a-s I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion. … I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”

“The World’s Greatest Abortion.”

“A life worth sacrificing.”